Ray White Northside Group v Denholm

[2015] QCAT 303

CITATION: Ray White Northside Group v Denholm [2015] QCAT 303

PARTIES:	Ray White Northside Group (Applicant)
v
David Denholm Olivia Denholm (Respondents)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDT34-15

MATTER TYPE: Residential tenancy matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON: 17 July 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The application is reopened.

2.    The Tribunal decision of 5 June 2015 is set aside.

3.    Olivia Denholm is added as a Respondent to the application.

4.    The application is listed for hearing on 21 August 2015 at 2:00pm.

CATCHWORDS:

TENANCY – proceeding in absence of respondent – due enquiry – reopening ground

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 93, s 137

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The respondents David Denholm and Olivia Denholm have made an application to reopen the initiating application regarding issues arising post tenancy determined on 5 June 2015 in their absence.

2. The respondents stated neither telephone numbers nor email address had ever changed. Additionally they stated that there was a mail redirection from the former tenancy address 17 Highcliff Crescent, North Lakes to 17 Duyvestyn Terrace, Murrumba Downs.

3. The applicants submissions refer to attempts to locate/contact the respondents firstly on Facebook and then by Australia Post to Mr Denholm’s father, Mr Denholm’s workplace address then to Mr Denholm’s known business partners address.

4. There is no mention of any telephone calls or emails nor any mention of what would have been the most obvious form of communication ie correspondence at least initially to the tenancy address with a view to that mail being on forwarded by redirection or collected the latter often being successful for service.

5. The Tribunal is satisfied on balance that neither the initiating application nor notice of hearing date came to the notice of the respondents prior to the date of hearing.

6. Simply because an application proceeds in the absence of a party, even where the Tribunal is satisfied all attempts have been made to locate the other party that does not preclude the Tribunal from reopening the initiating application where satisfied that in other circumstances notice of the application could have come to the attention of the respondent.

7. Section 93 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act) is designed to enable a party to proceed in the absence of the other party where due enquiry has been made. It is not designed to preclude that other party from ever responding to an application where it can be determined that that other party in all probability did not receive either the application or notice of hearing.